Mumbai Goa Court July 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Abdul Rehman Sheikh Hussein Vs. Ravindra Vassant Quencro and Others
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-10-2014
1. Heard Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1. 2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02/08/2007 passed by the learned District Judge-I, North Goa Panaji (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2006, thereby confirming the Judgment and decree dated 31/12/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda, Goa (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No. 43/2004/D. 3. Respondent no.1 was the plaintiff whereas the appellants and the respondents no. 2 and 3 were the defendants. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and demolition of the illegal construction. Originally, the suit was filed only against one Sheikh Lukruddin Sheikh Mohammed as sole defendant to restrain h...
Suresh Kakodkar Vs. Vinayak Gopinath Naik Karmali (Since deceased) and ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
1. The above two appeals can be conveniently disposed of by common judgment as they pertain to the same subject-matter. 2. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. None present for the respondents, though they have been duly served after admission, in both the appeals. 3. The Second Appeal No.3/05 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17/09/2004 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, FTC-II in Regular Civil Appeal No.21/2004. The said Regular Civil Appeal No.21 of 2004 was filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/01/2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Quepem (Trial Court, for short) in Regular Civil Suit No.211/2000. The respondents were plaintiffs and the appellants were defendants in the said Civil Suit. 4. The Second Appeal No.9/09 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16/10/2008 passed by the learned District Judge- 4, South Goa, Margao (First Appellate Court, for short) in Regu...
State of Goa and Another Vs. Sawaivir Sadassiva Rajendra Bassavalinga ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-04-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. Dhargalkar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30/10/2000 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Panaji (Reference Court, for short) in Land Acquisition Case No.135/1997. 3. The deceased respondent No.1 and respondents No.2(i) to 2(vi) were the applicants and appellants were the respondents in the said L.A.C. No.135/1997. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the Reference Court. 4. The facts of the case are as follows : Vide notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act, for short), published in the Official Gazette dated 24/11/89, the Government had acquired land for construction of a Bye-pass road to Ponda Town between Kms. 121/950 to 126/200. This included land situated at Curti of Ponda Taluka ...
V.G. Quenim and Another Vs. Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-03-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. All the above Petitions have been taken up together for final hearing with the consent of both the learned Counsel as the challenge is to the same Impugned Order dated 4.05.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, at Panaji, disposing off the application under Order 39 Rule 2-A and under Order 39 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the Respondents herein. 2. Heard Shri Y.V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants-Petitioners herein and Mr. Doctor, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents herein. 3. APPEALS FROM ORDER : Admit 4. WRIT PETITION : Rule 5. All the Petitions heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as the Petitions were also fixed for final disposal at the stage of admission. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service. The party shall be referred in the manner as they so appear in the cause title of the above Petitions. 6. Before I proceed to exam...
Nirmala Vs. Tulsi Sadananda Dessai
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-02-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard Mr. I. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent waives service. 4. The above appeal challenges an order dated 18.06.2008 whereby the objections raised by the appellants to the validity of the Will dated 18.09.1991 came to be dismissed. 5. Mr. Agha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his submissions has pointed out that the Will executed by the surviving spouse of a specific properties is a nullity in terms of Article 2177 of the Portuguese Civil Code. The learned counsel further pointed out that the said surviving spouse had bequeathed specific properties of the couple when such properties were not allotted to her. The learned counsel further pointed out that in terms of Article 2177 of the Portuguese Civil Code, such Will is a nullity and consequ...
Farida Khan and Another Vs. Union of India Through its Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jul-01-2014
Oral Judgment: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of aforesaid writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the following reliefs: (A) This Court be graciously pleased to direct the respondents no. 2 and 3 to probe and investigate into the financial transactions during the tenure of respondent No. 8 as Chairman of Respondent No. 6 Bank after registration of a regular case against respondent No. 8 for misappropriating the huge fund of Respondent bank and defrauding the securities of Respondent No.6 and the public at large for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with section 120B IPC and 13(10)(a)(C)(D) and (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and monitor the same under its control and supervision. (AA) The Court be graciously pleased to order the constitution of a committee of such financial experts from Reserve Bank of India/ NABARD and or such oth...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›